Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Kind of a techno Paul Revere
P.S. Warning: Material may contain sarcasm--biting sarcasm. Beware. Note my own restraint here in not signing this "Paul, the revered Dog."
Subject: Please post an RRW message
BTW Glenn does not believe there is a morale problem at LANL either. He and Mikey must be using some mood enhancing substance. Watch out guys, I hear LANL has a new drug testing policy.
Apparently, Marty didn't get that list of talking points, as he said both designs "we're equally certifiable", but that the LLNL proposal needed less development (duh, it wasn't nearly as transformational), and that "it had a shorter distance to go to get to the finish line" and "that was the tiebreaker".
You can pick this logic appart to the extreme: if the only goal was delivering a reliable, certified system to the Navy in the shortest time and with the least needed development, you don't need RRW at all! It's called the 76-1, and the Navy just took delivery of the first unit.
Transformation isn't free. Either you want to transform the deterrent or you don't. Revolutionary safety and security *will* require some development.
Another point that steams me is that the LANL team offered these ideas as modular: you could include them if you wished, or delay/delete them if you wanted a quicker implementation. We got no credit for the good ideas, and now we're penalized for offering options (with NNSA now saying the development of those OPTIONS work against our proposal).
What a joke.
Let's take stock and try to predict how this is going to turn out. NNSA ignored Congress' desire for transformation by making an archeological choice of a legacy design over one that allows them to modernize their complex. Oops #1. They flipped off the customer (Navy SSP) by giving them a design that offers essentially nothing beyond the 76-1 (from a team the Navy wisely does not trust). Oops #2. They slighted the taxpayer by offering an inferior safety/security approach. Oops #3.
Now who is arrogant?
Come on Congress, wake up!